The Church of Jesus Christ

For more of Melito click here.

What more can I add here?

Components of the Mystery of the Passover (46-71)

1. The Passover (46-47a)

46. Now that you have heard the explanation of the type and of that which corresponds to it, hear also what goes into making up the mystery. What is the passover? Indeed its name is derived from that event–”to celebrate the passover” (to paschein) is derived from “to suffer” (tou pathein). Therefore, learn who the sufferer is and who he is who suffers along with the sufferer.

47. Why indeed was the Lord present upon the earth? In order that having clothed himself with the one who suffers, he might lift him up to the heights of heaven[1].

2. The Creation and Fall of Man (47b-48)

In the beginning, when God made heaven and earth, and everything in them through his word, he himself formed man from the earth and shared with that form his own breath, he himself placed him in paradise, which was eastward in Eden, and there they lived most luxuriously.

Then by way of command God gave them this law: For your food you may eat from any tree, but you are not to eat from the tree of the one who knows good and evil. For on the day you eat from it, you most certainly will die.

48. But man, who is by nature capable of receiving good and evil as soil of the earth is capable of receiving seeds from both sides, welcomed the hostile and greedy counselor, and by having touched that tree transgressed the command, and disobeyed God. As a consequence, he was cast out into this world as a condemned man is cast into prison.

3. Consequences of the Fall (49-56)

49. And when he had fathered many children, and had grown very old, and had returned to the earth through having tasted of the tree, an inheritance was left behind by him for his children. Indeed, he left his children an inheritance–not of chastity but of unchastity, not of immortality but of corruptibility, not of honor but of dishonor, not of freedom but of slavery, not of sovereignty but of tyranny, not of life but of death, not of salvation but of destruction.

50. Extraordinary and terrifying indeed was the destruction of men upon the earth. For the following things happened to them: They were carried off as slaves by sin, the tyrant, and were led away into the regions of desire where they were totally engulfed by insatiable sensual pleasures–by adultery, by unchastity, by debauchery, by inordinate desires, by avarice, by murders, by bloodshed, by the tyranny of wickedness, by the tyranny of lawlessness.

51. For even a father of his own accord lifted up a dagger against his son; and a son used his hands against his father; and the impious person smote the breasts that nourished him; and brother murdered brother; and host wronged his guest; and friend assassinated friend; and one man cut the throat of another with his tyrannous right hand.

52. Therefore all men on the earth became either murderers, or parricides, or killers of their children. And yet a thing still more dreadful and extraordinary was to be found: A mother attacked the flesh which she gave birth to, a mother attacked those whom her breasts had nourished; and she buried in her belly the fruit of her belly. Indeed, the ill-starred mother became a dreadful tomb, when she devoured the child which she bore in her womb.

53. But in addition to this there were to be found among men many things still more monstrous and terrifying and brutal: father cohabits with his child, and son and with his mother, and brother with sister, and male with male, and each man lusting after the wife of his neighbor.

54. Because of these things sin exulted, which, because it was death’s collaborator, entered first into the souls of men, and prepared as food for him the bodies of the dead. In every soul sin left its mark, and those in whom it placed its mark were destined to die.

55. Therefore, all flesh fell under the power of sin, and every body under the dominion of death, for every soul was driven out from its house of flesh. Indeed, that which had been taken from the earth was dissolved again into earth, and that which had been given from God was locked up in Hades. And that beautiful ordered arrangement was dissolved, when the beautiful body was separated (from the soul).

56. Yes, man was divided up into parts by death. Yes, an extraordinary misfortune and captivity enveloped him: he was dragged away captive under the shadow of death, and the image of the Father remained there desolate. For this reason, therefore, the mystery of the passover has been completed in the body of the Lord.

Many of the readers of this blog know that I disagree with the idea that Doctrine has developed over time. My basis for this belief is that idea that many times the New Testament writers spoke about the Faith that was once for all delivered unto the Saints. In Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, we read that the new Christians continued steadfastly in the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Church is to continue in the Doctrine of the Apostles then that Doctrine must not change. You might call it Doctrinal Procession or Development, but I do not see a scriptural basis for it.

This week, while reading Early Christian Doctrines I came across a que to a thought by Gregory of Nazianzus. So, I went searching for it, in hopes of finding something biblical about it. This is the quote:

XXVI.  To this I may compare the case of Theology^37333733 Theology is here used in a restricted sense, as denoting simply the doctrine of the Deity of the Son or Logos.  It is very frequently used in this limited sense; examples of which may readily be found in Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Chrysostom, and others.  A similar use occurs in Orat. XXXVIII., c. 8, in which passage θεολογία is contrasted with οἰκονομία, the doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity with that of the Incarnation. except that it proceeds the reverse way.  For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions.  For the matter stands thus.  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.  The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit.  Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.  For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory,^37343734 Ps. lxxxiv. 7, and 2 Cor. iii. 18. the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.  For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues.  And indeed it is by little and little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully.  I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth.^37353735 John xiv. 16, 17. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority.  Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name.  He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send,^37363736 John xvi. 7. then again, I will send,—His own dignity.  Then shall come,^37373737 Ib. xvi. 8.the authority of the Spirit.

Theology, the translator tells us, is restrict to the Doctrine of the Deity of the Son. We can accept that. Gregory’s use of Father does not equal the use by the Jews, the Apostles, the Apostolic or the early Church Fathers. For them, Father was the principle, the source of Creation. The Son is proclaimed not as Son, but as Messiah, as the Hope of Israel.

The problem with Gregory’s analysis of the Old and the New and the Now (Father, Son, Spirit) is that it only provides Inspiration for the two. We are the base our doctrine on the Scriptures. If this is the case, then we have no real scriptures pointing to the deity of the Spirit and thus, no justification of the third person of the Trinity.

There is of course problem with the ‘gradual’ indwelling of the Apostles by the Spirit. There is no scriptural evidence for that. Christ did not give the Spirit measured in John 20.

Well, I don’t want to disect him too much, but I would rather stick with Chrysostom

I have written several posts on Sirach, sections that I have found useful, interesting, and intriguing, and in doing so, I have come to a greater appreciation for the Inspiration of this book. Inspiration - the thought that the author penned it, but it was the Divine Author that actually wrote it. Surely, I am not the only one that has seen a measure of inspiration in the words of Sirach, as we know that the ancient Rabbi’s used it as well as many of the Church Fathers.

Beginning with this post, I am going to attempt a commentary on Sirach for examination and proof of Inspiration.

Below you will see the addition of several alternate verses which are found in a different Greek recension of Sirach that used by the KJV and RSV. I include these because they are highly valuable, and unfortunately, the level of Textual Criticism that is often applied to the rest of the Bible has not yet reached a sound scientific basis for many of the books of the Deuterocanon. I will discuss the alternate verse as a stand alone verse in the passage.

This is not designed as the final word on Sirach, but to open up doorways for thinking by Fundamentals on Sirach, and fellow Economists/Emanationists (oneness) believers on the Wisdom passages of the Old Testament and the Deuterocanon. I always encourage discussion on these posts, and indeed, all posts.

Sirach 1:1-8

(1)  All Wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him for ever.

Ben Sira uses Wisdom not to encompass pure knowledge, but his view is clearly religious in nature, as would be natural for him. By itself, this verse is hardly impressive, however, by undertaking the rest of the passage first, we see that this Wisdom is an emanation from the Lord. (Wisdom 1.26, Hebrews 1.3).

(2)  Who can count the sand of the sea, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity?
(3)  Who can search them out the height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the abyss, and wisdom?
(4)  Wisdom was created before all things, and prudent understanding from eternity.

The verse is a prologue to John’s Logos passage, when in the beginning was the Word. It also looks back to Proverbs 8, the basis of understanding the Jewish view of Wisdom.

“I, Wisdom, dwell with prudence, And find out knowledge and discretion. The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding, I have strength. By me kings reign, And rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, All the judges of the earth. I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me. Riches and honor are with me, Enduring riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yes, than fine gold, And my revenue than choice silver. I traverse the way of righteousness, In the midst of the paths of justice, That I may cause those who love me to inherit wealth, That I may fill their treasuries. “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.  (Proverbs 8:12-22 NKJV)

Sirach connects to the the Logos of John and the Wisdom of Proverbs as well as the Emanation of Wisdom 7.26. This is not difficult to justify from the Economist/Emanationist standpoint. The Divine is not without His Wisdom or His Word, and thus not alone; however, the Wisdom and Word are divine persons, but attributes and emanations. Wisdom is God Thinking whereas Word is God Active.

And alternate verse here, which is highly Christological, reads

(4a) Wisdom’s spring is God’s word in the highest, and her journeys are everlasting commandments.

This verse is attested to in the Syriac as well as the Latin,

Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis, et ingressus illius mandata aeterna. - Nova Vulgata

The Logos is seen here as the spring of Sophia, the source. In ancient times, Wisdom is associated with the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God is seen as emanating from the Son. In John 14 and 16, we read of the spirit of Truth that will come from the Father as well as coming from the Son. This is God speaking His wisdom to dwell among flesh as the gift of the holy Spirit.

This verse is important to the Church, as we cannot fail to be reminded that the Apostle called Christ the Wisdom of God. (cf Luke 7.35 and 1st Corinthians 1.24)

(5) To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed? Who knows her great deeds?

The Greek word ‘Sophia’ is feminine, causing most translators to make the pronoun feminine as well; however, this should not the reader’s mind nor single Wisdom as female. Many would assume that Wisdom is the the Jewish version of Isis, the Egyptian goddess; however, even in Proverbs, Wisdom is usually translated as feminine.

(6)  There is One who is wise, greatly to be feared, sitting upon his throne.

This (6) verse is left out of some ancient MSS. One theory is that it was removed by the Jews sometime after the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135. The Rabbi’s, seeking to save Judaism, began removing certain passages from the LXX (cf Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho) in hopes of reducing the Christology of the Old Testament.

(7)  The Lord himself created wisdom; he saw her and numbered her, he poured her out upon all his works.
(8)  She dwells in the midst of all flesh according to his gift, and he supplied her to those who love him.

This calls to mind John 3.16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 NKJV)

And alternate verse here reads,

(8a) Loving the Lord is esteemed wisdom, but to whomever He appears, He apportions her as a vision of Himself.

Again we turn to Paul’s writing, when he calls Christ the Image of God.

Whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4 NKJV)

And to John,

“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.  (John 14:7-11 NKJV)

This is the last of the series of posts on Mormonism for this week. (It does not mean that I will not revisit the topic from time to time.) The Mormon religion was founded by a con man with very little on his mind but money, power, and control over women. He and his disciples essentially created ritualized adultery and corrupted the traditional view of marriage. If the roots are corrupt, how can the tree not be poisonous? I have not included all of the quotes, as some of them are more lewd that I would want on this blog. I advise you that although these sayings are the Truth of Mormonism, they are not easy to digest. They are filled with  allowances of incest, pedophilia, adultery, and polygamy.

From Rethinking Mormonism:

The Restoration Means God Leads the Mormon Church

“Through living prophets, Christ is leading this church today. The greatest security of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes from learning to listen to and obey the words and commandments that the Lord has given through living prophets. I would hope that the world would understand the importance of having a living prophet on earth today… Their purpose is to bring us the will of the Lord for our times.“

” I give my testimony that the prophets of this day have the qualities of the prophets of old and the other prophets of this dispensation. Each of these prophets has humbly and prayerfully sought to know and follow God’s will in his personal ministry. We declare with soberness, and yet with the authority of God in us vested, we have a prophet today. The President of the Church, as a prophet, is God’s representative on earth and is appointed to lead His church. Christ is the head of his Church today, just as he was in ancient times. The Lord has said that this is ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased‘ (D&C 1:30).”
-Apostle Robert D. Hales, “Hear the Prophet’s Voice and Obey,” Ensign, May 1995, Page 15

Now look what those leaders have done over the last 150 years…

The following historical events regarding sex and marriage in the church have been compiled from the extensive historical church chronology from D. Michael Quinn’s book “The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of Power” For references, refer to the book.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Bob McCue

My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, wash, and be clean?
2 Kings 5:10

Introduction

This essay is written as part of my ongoing attempt to understand my religious experience as a faithful member of the Mormon Church, and in the hope that it will shorten the learning curve of others who will come behind me along the same path.

The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”, the “Mormon Church” or the “LDS Church”) are aware of a great deal of persuasive evidence that is relevant to the evaluation of the Church’s foundational claims. The questions to which this evidence relates include things like whether Joseph Smith translated, as that term is ordinarily understood, physical golden plates into the Book of Mormon, or did he have some kind of mystic experience that gave rise to that book? And what was the nature of the experience Mormons know as the “First Vision”? Did Joseph see God the Father and the Jesus Christ and receive a certain clearly defined mandate from them, as he indicated in an account given near the end of his life, or did any of the other various conflicting things he said about that experience occur instead of, or in addition to, what is now contained in the official account?

And how about the chapters in Mormon history euphemistically labelled “Lying for the Lord”? These chronicle the fact that Joseph Smith lied for almost ten years over the pulpit, in private, in the news papers etc. by saying that he did not participate in polygamy and the fact that for close to 15 years between 1890 and 1905 many other Church leaders did the same thing while pretending to obey U.S. federal authority respecting the requirement that Mormons not practise polygamy while almost all of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency were authorizing or participating in polygamous marriage sealings.

Read the rest of this entry »

From Rethinking Mormonsim:

“Jesus ’so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God.’ Indeed, the Father and the Son are one-in purpose and love.“

“Divine love is also conditional. While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us-and certain divine blessings stemming from that love-are conditional.“

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly ‘unconditional’ can defend us against common fallacies such as these: ‘Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …’; or ‘Since ‘God is love,’ He will love me unconditionally, regardless …’ These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception.“

Read the rest of this entry »

If Mormons Are Christians, Then Am I A Mormon? « i love mormons.

Love the quote…

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” -J. Reuben Clark, D. Michael Quinn: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24.

INVESTIGATING MORMONISM.

If you are investigating Mormonism (the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “LDS Church”), you are probably studying it in private meetings in your home with missionaries from that church. Here are some of the key things that they are probably telling you:

Read the rest of this entry »

From Rethinking Mormonism:

“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.“
(D&C 131:6)

How many Mormons are ignorant about their own faith?

How many Mormons know these critical truths about Mormonism:

• The official First Vision story was not written by Joseph Smith and was produced decades after the event supposedly occurred. Details

• Smith did not use the “Urim and Thumim” to dictate any part of the Book of Mormon text we have today. Details

• Mormon leaders, including Smith, described the Moroni visit as a “dream” until 1831, the year after the church was organized. Details

• Almost 20 years before Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, his father coincidentally had a dream nearly identical to the narrative of “Lehi’s Dream” in the Book of Mormon. Details

• Smith practiced polygamy while he was alive, secretly marrying teenagers and women who were already married. Details

• Smith testified many times that he was coerced into secret polygamous marriages by an “angel with a sword.” Details

• Smith removed his garments before he went to Carthage Jail and told all of the other polygamists to do the same. Details

• There have been major alterations in the temple endowment and to the temple covenants. Death-oath covenants and whole doctrinal sections were changed as recently as 1990. Details

• The scrolls Joseph Smith “translated” into the Book of Abraham have been identified by Egyptologists — including LDS scholars — as common, pagan Egyptian burial documents, that do not mention Abraham and have no connection to the contents of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Details

• Early Mormon African-Americans were ordained to the Priesthood until Brigham Young became prophet. Details

• Soon after the first printing, Joseph Smith tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon. Details

• Mormon teachings regarding a “Celestial Kingdom” and “three degrees of glory” come from a 17th-century Christian author. Details

• The overwhelming DNA evidence shows that all pre-Columbian native Americans are descendants from Asia and have no connection to Jews or the middle east. Details

• The Mormon Church has a legacy of bashing Christians and Christianity. Details
• Joseph Smith did not give his life as an innocent martyr. A recent church film depicting Smith’s death leaves out the fact that he shot three men and used a Masonic distress call moments before he died. Details

Granted, none of these are “testimony killers” nor are they meant to be. There are some people, especially the Mormon apologists and historians, who know these facts. But the point is, the vast majority of Mormons do not learn these things from the church.

But aren’t these facts relevant to the truthfulness of the church’s other claims?

Is the average Mormon informed enough to make an intelligent decision about the church, or are they kept in ignorance?

Does the church really think “it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance?”

Continuing our series on Mormonism, we examine some of their fundamental beliefs.

From here.

1. Is There More Than One True God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

2. Was God Once a Man Like Us?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God — all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).

3. Are Jesus and Satan Spirit Brothers?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

4. Is the Godhead a plurality?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).

5. Was The Sin Of Adam and Eve a Great Evil Or a Great Blessing?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve was a great evil. Through their fall sin entered the world, bringing all human beings under condemnation and death. Thus we are born with a sinful nature, and will be judged for the sins we commit as individuals. (Ezekiel 18:1-20; Romans 5:12-21).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam’s sin was “a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us” (Gospel Principles, p. 33; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 2:25; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-115).

6. Can We Make Ourselves Worthy Before God? The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1,5) and are powerless to save ourselves. By grace alone, apart from self-righteous works, God forgives our sins and makes us worthy to live in His presence (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6). Our part is only to cling to Christ in heartfelt faith. (However, it is certainly true that without the evidence of changed conduct, a person’s testimony of faith in Christ must be questioned; salvation by grace alone through faith, does not mean we can live as we please — Romans 6:1-4).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms “exaltation in the celestial kingdom”) must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the “celestial kingdom”) — Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price — Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 25:23).

7. Does Christ’s Atoning Death Benefit Those Who Reject Him?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the purpose of the atoning work of Christ on the cross was to provide the complete solution for humankind’s sin problem. However, those who reject God’s grace in this life will have no part in this salvation but are under the judgment of God for eternity (John 3:36; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ’s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669).

8. Is The Bible The Unique and Final Word of God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many “plain and precious parts” and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191).

9. Did The Early Church Fall Into Total Apostasy?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the true Church was divinely established by Jesus and could never and will never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18; John 15:16; 17:11). Christians acknowledge that there have been times of corruption and apostasy within the Church, but believe there has always been a remnant that held fast to the biblical essentials.

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there was a great and total apostasy of the Church as established by Jesus Christ; this state of apostasy “still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel” of the Mormon Church (Gospel Principles, pp. 105-106; Mormon Doctrine, p. 44).

From, Rethinking Mormonism:

Question: “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?”

Hinckley: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.“
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/gbh-god.htm

Question: “Don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?”

Hinckley: “I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else.“
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

Church apologists explain Hinckley’s public statements:

“The real question should be, is President Snow’s couplet an accurate reflection of LDS doctrine? Everything Latter-day Saints teach about God is in agreement with the rest of the Christian world, with the exception of His nature. Joseph Smith said God is in the same form as we are, because we were created in His image as the Bible plainly and clearly tells us… But again, we do not emphasize Heavenly Father’s past, but the possibility of our future.
- The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR)

From this Mormon apologist rhetoric, you’d think that fundamental Mormon doctrine does not include God once being a man.

What has the Mormon Church consistently taught as doctrine from 1844 to 2005?

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know…that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life–to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ.“
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345, also quoted heavily by the church, see Gospel Principles, Chapter 47.

“The idea that the Lord our God is not a personage of tabernacle is entirely a mistaken notion. He was once a man. Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if be had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other. If he had a Father, he was made in his likeness. And if he is our Father we are made after his image and likeness. He once possessed a body, as we now do; and our bodies are as much to us, as his body to him. Every iota of this organization is necessary to secure for us an exaltation with the Gods.“
- Prophet Brigham Young, True Character of God, Salt Lake Tabernacle, February 23, 1862, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p.286

“What, is it possible that the Father of Heights, the Father of our spirits, could reduce himself and come forth like a man? Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this, passed through the ordeal you and I pass through. He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is become Lord of all. He is the God pertaining to this earth. He is our Father. He begot our spirits in the spirit world. They have come forth and our earthly parents have organized tabernacles for our spirits and here we are today. That is the way we came.
- Prophet Brigham Young, 14 July 1861, Recorded in “The Essential Brigham Young”, p.138

“On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

“Many religions teach that human beings are children of God, but often their conception of Him precludes any kind of bond resembling a parent-child relationship. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught of a much simpler and more sensible relationship: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit … was to make himself visible … , you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.””
- “Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female,” Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48

“The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.“
- Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34, “The Teachings of Brigham Young”

“God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, are glorified, exalted, resurrected, beings, and from the moment of the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, we have known their true nature.”
- Offical LDS publication, Ensign, June 1998, Apostle Russell Ballard, “Building Bridges of Understanding”

“That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises.”
- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, Sunday, September 18, 1898.

“We all know that like begets like and that for the offspring to grow to the stature of his parent is a process infinitely repeated in nature. We can therefore understand that for a son of God to grow to the likeness of his Father in heaven is in harmony with natural law. We see this law demonstrated every few years in our own experience. Sons born to mortal fathers grow up to be like their fathers in the flesh. This is the way it will be with spirit sons of God. They will grow up to be like their Father in heaven. Joseph taught this obvious truth. As a matter of fact, he taught that through this process God himself attained perfection. From President Snow’s understanding of the teachings of the Prophet on this doctrinal point, he coined the familiar couplet: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” This teaching is peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.“
- Elder Marion G. Romney, General Conference, October 1964

“We often say, and you have heard the expression as it has already been referred to in this conference, that “as man now is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become.” The only way man may become as God now is, is through fulfilling the laws of celestial marriage and the laws of the gospel, as I have just read to you the word of the Lord from the D&C. Can we afford to overlook such opportunities for exaltation? Temple marriage is not just another form of church wedding; it is a divine covenant with the Lord that if we are faithful to the end, we may become as God now is.”
- Elder Eldred G. Smith (Patriarch to the Church), General Conference, October 1948

“Mormonism be it true or false, holds out to men the greatest inducements that the human mind can grasp. And so it does… It teaches men that they can become divine, that man is God in embryo, that God was once man in mortality, and that the only difference between Gods, angels and men is a difference in education and development. Is such a religion to be sneered at? It teaches that the worlds on high, the stars that glitter in the blue vault of heaven, are kingdoms of God, that they were once earths like this, that they have been redeemed and glorified by the same laws, the same principles that are applied to this planet, and by which it will ascend to a perfected and glorified state. It teaches that these worlds are peopled with human beings, God’s sons and daughters, and that every husband and father, may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, to some future planet.”
- Orson F. Whitney, Divine Evidences of Truthfulness, Y.M.M.I.A. Annual Conference, June 9th, 1895.

“So the Prophet Joseph Smith, in this age, has added to this truth by the assertion that “As man is God once was, and that as He is man may became,” because He is our Father, and like begets like, and inherent within us are the attributes of divinity that shall lead us into perfection, which Christ intended His Saints to attain unto.”
- Elder Joseph E. Robinson, General Conference, April 1912

“God our Heavenly Father is still progressing. While He knows all that is, all that has been, and possibly all things that He designs for the future and what will be in the future, yet He is constantly adding to His dominion, constantly increasing His power, constantly developing in His resources and in His glorious aspirations. This, at least, is our understanding of the condition of our Father in heaven. The thought has been expressed and accepted as a truth, that as we are now, God has been, and as God is now we may be; and if we admit this to be a truth-and I have no disposition to dispute it-then I repeat that even God our Heavenly Father has not reached the ultimatum of His greatness, His power, or His capacity, but that He is continually increasing and expanding in power, in dominion, in glory and in greatness, if I may be permitted to use such terms as these which some people who know no better would call blasphemous, in connection with the Supreme Being, the Father of us all.
- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Sustaining Each Other in the Gospel, Sunday, February 16, 1896.

“We are His children in Very deed, having been born of Him in the spirit, and we have inherited the very attributes which he possesses. They are in us, and they make us God’s embryo, We believe that as we are now God once was, and by the practice of virtue and righteousness, by obedience unto law and authority, He has become what He is, and as He is, man may become, on the same principle.”
- Elder Goege F. Richards, General Conference, April 1913

“The doctrine of the relationship between God and men, as made plain through the word of revelation, is today as it was of old, though in the light of later scripture we are enabled to read the meaning more clearly. It is provided that we, the sons and daughters of God, may advance until we become like unto our Eternal Father and our Eternal Mother, in that we may become perfect in our spheres as they are in theirs. That grand truth, taught by the Prophet Joseph and ridiculed for the time, has now gripped the minds of the thinkers and philosophers of the age… It was crystallized into what we may call an aphorism, by President Lorenzo Snow: ‘As man is God once was; as God is man may be’.”
- Elder James E. Talmage, General Conference, April 1915

“I don’t understand that the Mormon doctrine, announced by President Lorenzo Snow, and so often quoted by us: “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become” means that all men are going to become what God is, not by any manner of means. It is possible they may become; yes, when men keep and obey the fulness of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand, my brethren and sisters, this great scheme of our Father contemplates that the privilege of gaining celestial glory has been extended to nearly all of his children. There are a very few in the world who are barred from all the privileges. Evidently according to the revelations of the Lord, those races and divisions existing among us now, existed before we came into this world, and some had failed to carry out the will of God and to conform to his plans in their former life to prove themselves worthy to receive the highest of privileges, namely, salvation in the celestial kingdom of our God.”
- Elder Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, October 1917

“Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey.”
- Elder Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104

“It is a Mormon truism that is current among us and we all accept it, that as man is God once was and as God is man may become. That does not signify that man will become God. I am sorry to say, and yet it is a truth, that not many men will become what God is, simply because they will not pay the price, because they are not willing to live up to the requirements; and still all men may, if they will, become what God is, but only those who are heirs of the celestial glory shall ever be possible candidates, to become what God is.”
- Elder Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, April 1921

“We believe that God is a personal being. By a personal being, we mean that he is a man–an exalted man. Approximately one hundred years ago, soon after Lorenzo Snow became a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ, he formulated a remarkable couplet which has since that time become famous. He said: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” (Lorenzo Snow, The Millennial Star 54:404.) Time and time again during the period of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith, various evidences were given to him sustaining, amplifying, and explaining the personality of God. If time would permit, many excellent quotations could be cited from the D&C which would help to describe the personality of our Eternal Father.”
- Elder Milton R. Hunter, General Conference, October 1948

“We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop.”
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977

What We Believe About God:

1. God is Our Heavenly Father
   “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Hebrews 12:9)
   • Before we were born on earth we lived with him as spirits.
   • He is the father of our spirits and we are his children.
   • Our bodies were created in his image.
2. God is a Member of the Godhead
   (See D&C 130:22-23)
   • There are three separate beings that make up the Godhead: God (our Heavenly Father), Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost
   • The members of the Godhead are ONE in purpose
3. God Has a Body of Flesh and Bones
   “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (D&C 130:22)
   • He has an eternal, perfect, physical body of flesh and bones.
   • He does not have blood like mankind.
4. God is Perfect and He Loves Us
   “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)
   • He is a perfect being and we have been commanded to become like him.
   • He loves everyone of us.
5. God Created All Things
   “God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 3:9)
   • Through Jesus Christ, he created all things.
   • He is the ruler of the universe and all things in it.
6. God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent
   “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” (Psalms 147:5)
   • He is all powerful.
   • He knows all things, past, present and future.
   • Through the power of his Spirit he can be everywhere.
7. God Can Be Seen
   “But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.” (Moses 1:11)
   • A person without sin can see God.
   • To see God a person must be transfigured: changed by the Spirit to a state of glory.
8. Other Names Of God:
   • Elohim/Eloheim
   • Creator
   • Supreme Governor
   • Supreme Being
   • Father of Mankind

Starting us off our last edition of the weekly news is a question asked by this blogger on the common hertiage of Abraham among the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Personally, Islam doesn’t count since Judaism prophesied Christianity where as Islam is a false religion of imagination.

WB Moore has a great post on the color of the robe of Christ.

This blogger has a great post on the lyrics in Christian music.

The Christian Carnival is up.

Awilum tells us

If you are in the Louisville area you’ll want to be sure to check out a panel discussion at Southern Seminary entitled: Christology in the Old Testament: A panel discussion of how and to what extent we should see Christ in the Old Testament. The panel includes Tom Schreiner (New Testament prof), Duane Garrett and Peter Gentry (Old Testament profs), and Jim Hamilton (Biblical Theology prof). It should be a very fascinating discussion.

Richard at Better Bible Blog gives a bit on the Lord’s Prayer.

Jim West:

“Tribals in Jharkhand are up in arms against a recent Kuduk translation of the Bible, which exhorts people to destroy trees and places where they worship. The Bible Society of India has apologised for the translation and has promised to withdraw copies from the market.The Kendriya Sarna Samittee (KSS), an organisation of tribals, has announced it will burn the copies translated into Kuduk - one of the local tribal languages - if they are not withdrawn.”

Source: Thaindian News

The Apologetics Study Bible website is up with five flash movies for curriculum that can be watched or downloaded from the site for Sunday School and small groups and more coming.

Byron updates on his reading of the Qu’ran.

Just click here.

In this segment of the Issues, Etc. radio program Dr. Rod Rosenbladt of the White Horse Inn is discussing Sola Fide. In the course of the program he is given the opportunity to respond to Rick Warren’s theology. During his response Rosenbladt blasts Warren’s false doctrine and calls Rick Warren a “Southern-Baptist Roman Catholic”.

Phorios at EP has a post on the Catholic and Orthodox ‘understanding’ of nature vs. person.

Halden as couple of great posts on the Perichoretic Church. Here, here, and here.

Here is the link to the free audio file from the Christology in the Old Testament panel discussion at SBTS.  It is very much worth a listen.

GE, which developed the 4D ultrasound imaging technology, has a website of images that follow the timeline of the unborn’s development from six weeks to birth.

Vern Poythress has a new article in World Magazine on “Feeling Guilty?” He says,

The sad thing here is that this flight from guilt means not only a life of delusion, but a life of spiritual misery. If you are guilty, you are alienated from God, and you flee from Him. Then you are lonely at a fundamental level, because only God understands you deeply and can supply the deep fellowship that you yearn for. Cut off from God, your life is meaningless, because meaning flows from God. In addition, you lose capacity genuinely to befriend other people, because you can’t admit your guilt to them. Instead of loving others, you are caught up with maintaining your own self-esteem—your own pride. You are swirling in a downward spiral toward death.

I have not had the chance to write about one of the topics that has interested me, the Godhead, but since there is a current discussion concerning this verse, I feel that it might a time to interject a bit.

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God[3] which He purchased with His own blood.  (Acts 20:28 NKJV)

Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.  (Acts 20:28 NET)

προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος Act 20:28

I was not happy to find the NET had added the word ‘Son’ (RSV, NRSV, CEV, NJB), however, it impressed me that the NLT read,

“And now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God’s flock–his church, purchased with his blood–over whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders.” (Acts 20:28 NLT)

The ASV, using the Westcott-Hort text (which does NOT underlie the current translations) says ‘Church of the Lord’. On this textual variant, the Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Criticism, says,

While it is possible that the phrase “the church of the Lord” (found nowhere else in the New Testament) was replaced with the more familiar “the church of God” (found eleven times in the writings of Paul), it is more likely that “church of God” is original but copyists took offense at “[his] own blood” and changed “God” to “the Lord.” When the two are abbreviated, as they often were in manuscripts, there is only one letter’s difference between them. The reading “the church of the Lord and God” is a combination of the two readings, as is “the church of the Lord God” which is read by many of the Byzantine manuscripts.

There are some problems with taking this passage as a definite reference to Christ as the one God, not the least of which is the fact that there are several variant readings in the extant manuscripts (MSS) and we have demonstrated with the RV/ASV which used the manuscripts of Westcott and Hort. Some MSS read “the church of the Lord” (ekklesia kuriou) as opposed to “the church of God,” while other, later MSS combine both readings together so that we have “the church of the Lord and God.” It should be noted that the textual variant, like most textual variants, pose no threat to the Deity of Christ. The Ekklesia of the Lord (ekklesia kuriou) is used seven times in the Septuagint. (Deuteronomy 23.2-4, 8 LXX, which is usually translated as ‘assembly of the Lord’ in the NETS; 1st Chronicles 28.8; Micah 2.5)

Whether is the ‘Church of God’ or ‘Church of the Lord’ plays into the discussion concerning the Blood, which Tertullian tells us in chapter 3, book 2 of his book, ‘To His Wife’, is the blood of God,

So far as I know, “we are not our own, but bought with a price and what kind of price?  The blood of God.

Robertson says,

With his own blood (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). Through the agency of (dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philippians 2:5-11.

This is an important Christological passage and clearly points to Christ being God, without the idea of a distinction of person. The Father, who is Spirit, had no blood, but according the Economy of God, God became Incarnate (literally, in the Flesh) and due to this nature, had blood flowing through His veins.

There is also a debate whether to translate dia tou haimatos tou idiou as “which he obtained with his own blood” or “which he obtained with the blood of his own.” The translation “the blood of his own” can imply that it wasn’t the blood of God that purchased the Church, but the blood of one dear to God, such as a child or more specifically his beloved Son. To note, nowhere in Scripture is Christ called ‘His own’. As noted by the NET translators:

114tn Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.

This method is used by several modern translations and supplemented with the words ‘of the Son’ which is to add Doctrine to the Scriptures when none exist. As a matter of fact, apologist Robert Bowman notes “that  it was not until the latter half of the nineteenth century that anyone proposed that the words here in question did not mean ‘his own blood.’” Elsewhere, the New Testament speaks of Christ purchasing the Church either with His blood or through a reference to His death on the Cross,

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7 NKJV)

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. (Titus 2:11-14 NKJV)

Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
(Hebrews 13:12 NKJV)

knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.  (1 Peter 1:18-19 NKJV)

And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us[4] kings[5] and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:9-10 NKJV)

In discussing the NWT’s translation (the Jehovah Witnesses’ translation made by unknown translator’s using unknown principles) addition of the word ‘his own son’ , Robert M. Bowman Jr, explains,

To get around the reading “which he purchased with his own blood,” some scholars in the past century or so have argued that the clause should be translated, “which he purchased with the blood of his own.” What is at dispute here, in technical terms, is whether to take TOU IDIOU adjectivally (”his own”) or substantivally (”of his own”). The simplest reading in terms of the grammar is the adjectival reading, “through his own blood.” (Greek often places the adjective after the noun in this construction, article-noun-article-adjective, called the second attributive position.) The NWT Reference Bible, in an appendix on Acts 20:28, admits that this would be “the usual translation” (p. 1580). However, Harris and some other scholars favor the substantival reading. On this reading, “his own” is a kind of description or title of Christ. They admit that Christ is nowhere else in the NT called “his own,” but they compare this way of construing the words to other titles of Christ using adjectives, such as “the Righteous One” or “the Beloved.”

The NWT reflects a similar approach; it translates the text, “the blood of his own.” The NWT Reference Bible appendix does not state whether this translation is based on the text-critical view of Hort that “Son” was originally in the text or on the grammatical view that TOU IDIOU is to be construed substantivally. The appendix presents both explanations and leaves it at that.

I don’t find the arguments for these views persuasive. There is zero manuscript evidence to support Hort’s speculation, despite the fact that there are several other textual variants in the manuscripts for this verse. So I think that view may be safely set aside as both unsubstantiated and improbable.

The view that TOU IDIOU is a substantive is at least plausible, but I think it is also unlikely. Against it I would make the following six arguments.

1. The other titles of Christ based on adjectives (e.g., “the Beloved”) all have multiple attestations in the NT and continued to be recognized as Christological titles and used by the early church. This is not the case with the hypothetical title “His Own.” Moreover, in the case of these other titles there is no grammatical ambiguity about their usage as there is here.

2. The smoothest and simplest reading is the adjectival reading, “his own blood.” I don’t know of anyone who disputes this fact. Again, as noted above, the NWT Reference Bible appendix acknowledges that this would be “the usual translation.”

3. It is prejudice against the text speaking of God’s “blood” that drives the substantival reading, as Harris himself candidly states. The NWT Reference Bible appendix makes this clear as well, observing, “That has been a difficult thought for many.” But ultimately this begs the question.

4. The early church clearly did not even entertain the substantival reading. Copyists who were bothered by the text altered “God” to “Lord” (as noted above) or made other changes, attesting to their understanding TOU IDIOU adjectivally. As best I can determine, the substantival reading is only about a hundred years old. This doesn’t make it certainly false, but it does place a heavy burden of proof on the substantival reading.1

5. As Harris himself points out, as quickly as the early second century Ignatius could write about “God’s blood” (Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 1:1). Where did Ignatius get such language? Is it best explained as an Ignatian innovation or as reflecting Paul’s words in Acts, originally spoken to the Ephesian Christians (Acts 20:17, 28)? The Ephesian connection gives weight to the latter view.

6. The Bible elsewhere speaks in similar language of Christ’s blood, e.g., “through his blood” (DIA TOU hAIMATOS AUTOU, Eph. 1:7), “through his own blood” (DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, Heb. 13:12). (Again, the position of TOU IDIOU cannot be said to make any difference in the absence of some evidence for that claim.) Admittedly, the Bible can also use a substantival expression in the final position, as in “through the blood of his cross” (DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU STAUROU AUTOU, Col. 1:20), but again, here the adjective AUTOU functions adjectivally to mean “Christ’s,” not “the Father’s.”

It is interesting to note that the very idea that God had shed blood is sited as the reason that scribes replaced ‘God’ with ‘Lord’ and would later conflate the text to read ‘God and Lord’. During the Christological debates, it was often cited that God was impassible and thus could not have blood. Raymond E. Brown, an Catholic New Testament Scholar, admits,

“The Holy Spirit has made you overseers to feed the church of God which he obtained with his own blood.” There are two problems about the italicized words: One concerns a variant reading (”the church of the Lord”); the other concerns grammatical understanding. As for the variant, “the church of God” is slightly better attested than “the church of the Lord.” Moreover, the reasoning why later copyists might have changed an original “the church of God” to “the church of the Lord” is somewhat stronger than for a change in the opposite direction. Overall, then, the weight of the argument favors “the church of God” as more original.

251. Although “the church of the Lord” occurs seven times in the Greek OT, it does not occur elsewhere in the NT, while “the church of God” occurs eleven times in the epistles attributed to Paul; thus here copyists of the NT might have changed an original but highly unusual “the church of the Lord” to the more customary expression. On the other hand “the church of God” could have struck copyists of the NT as objectionable because the sequence would then seem to be speaking of God’s blood; accordingly they might have changed the phrase to refer to “the Lord (Jesus).” (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament [Paulist Press, Mahwah NJ, 1994], pp. 177-178; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Our beloved Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, writes,

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him “who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,” Ephesians 5:2 [you hastened to see me]. I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 1)

I can find no objection to understanding that ‘God’ in this verse is fully meant to refer to Christ, as it has been demonstrated elsewhere in the New Testament, as well as the Church Fathers (Ignatius and in some part, Melito of Sardis), that it was Christ, not God’s own, Who shed His blood for the redemption of the Church. No mention of the Godhead as understood by the Trinity can be seen unless it is stretched and developed; what can be seen is the Incarnation and the humanity of that Incarnation which bleed for the the lost. We can hear Paul’s call to remember the Cross of Calvary and to remember the Son for He is our God, Jesus Christ and according to the economy of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the holy Spirit of God. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

• Part 1
• Part 2

This is the first part in a series dealing with the word ‘apostolic’. This is a rough draft, as many of my personal writings on this blog are, but I intend to put them out there in order strengthen my arguments as well as to correct them. Invite criticism and opinion, negative and positive, as always. Warning: This is not complete in information, but complete in thought. It should be clear that I would oppose calling myself ‘Apostolic’.

Determining the correct meaning

Bob Scudieri serves as a mission executive with the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. The book, The Apostolic church: One, holy, catholic and missionary, is the result of research conducted at Yale University between 1990 and 1991. The purpose of Scudieri’s research was to conduct a historical study of the word “Apostolic,” to determine whether Apostolic meant “sent” (like an ambassador, sent on a specific mission with specific authority) or whether it meant “pr